That's Willie, but yeah.

Lots of the show is scripted, but how else would it be funny?

and to back my point....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/24/duck-dynasty-gear-flying-high/4183277/

I knew that this was this "Willie", that's why I said "And with some more research I found that at least one of his brothers looked already like they look now when they took the photos on that beach on a wedding or whatever. "

My sentence below this picture was meant for the next picture  where you could see this jason guy with his father in 2008.

This here:

That shows at least that they already looked pretty much like they seem to look in the show (like i said, i never saw the show) years before the show started.

Here a pic of his father from 2008.

So, since I never saw the show I can't say how much is scripted and how much isn't but the picture from the beach where Jason didn't have such a beard and all people looked so "normal" doesn't really prove that they only look like that for the show. To me it seems as if they absolutely looked exactly like in the show years before it started. 

If you define everyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality as homophobe then your point is necessarily wrong because there is no proof to show. There are many people who don't agree yet haven't been hateful or anything close to it.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=1

I suggest everyone actual read the article to see what he actually said.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it didn't seem to me like he was saying everyone who disagreed with homosexuality were homophobes.  Those who arbitrarily damn an entire segment of the population based upon a 2000+ year old fantasy novel however, are.

For example, I'm not a homosexual, but I don't even consider that any love I feel is more 'pure' than theirs, and there's simply no empirical evidence to suggest that what they're doing is wrong in any way shape or form.  They can still retain the services of a surrogate to have children (and guess what, so do some religious folks, just so they don't have to go through the hardship of being pregnant). 

"2000+ year old fantasy novel however, are."

First, that's your personal opinion and I highly doubt you studied anything on the bible when it comes to historical significance or reliability.

Secondly, your using the Appeal to Novelty fallacy which is an illogical argument. If we created a law in the current time to legalize killing would it therefor be good compared to the the law of "we shall not kill" back in 2000 years ago? Obviously, not. The fact is the founders even though not christian themselves (besides some) admitted that they created most if not all around the bible. Going as far to say divine rights which is a direct reference to bible as an atheist can't use divine rights because you are created by your own philosophy by nothing but chance and have no ulimate meaning to your existence.

 "For example, I'm not a homosexual, but I don't even consider that any love I feel is more 'pure' than theirs, and there's simply no empirical evidence to suggest that what they're doing is wrong in any way shape or form. "

 Interesting you use empirical evidence without realizing how it creates conflict with your own point. You use "I don't" which directly implies that you believe this is your subjective opinion. Therefor, from your own argument your own morality is "arbitrary" because it in itself can't be proved to be empirically proven to be correct. Not many times in philosophy where someone creates a knock-down argument for his own argument. So, the question becomes if your own morality is arbitrary by your own logic then what are you actually arguing?

and the Ducky Dynasty guy wins.

In an amazingly gutless move... they've already backed off the ban.

a&e is quite stupid, they cant win in this.

duck dynasty supporters/fans arent going to forgive A&e, and will continue to not support them.

and gay supporters/worshippers are going to think of A&E as cowards

I made an account just so I could reply to this thread. I am not entirely certain what was said, but I am gay and I have to say that the man has a right to his opinion. If somebody doesn't like me because I am gay, then fair enough. We all have a right to speak our minds, the real crime here would be if this man was punished for doing so.

Edit: I guess something relevant to this would be the current fight for gay marriage. How could gay people seek to hinder this man's right to free speech, whilst also fighting for the right to marry. Freedom is for everybody and in all things, the good and the bad.

It was proven he was misquoted from the actual interview. How were they wrong?